If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Like, on one hand, if this isn't the time to try to do something else to minimize these school shootings, then when? If we forget about all this in a couple of months again, like the Colorado thing, then that's pretty much it, the people have spoken, this shit's always going to happen.

And I totally agree there's no reason anyone needs an assault rifle to protect their home, or shoot a deer for fun (yeehaw).

On the other hand, I get that it's not an argument of "needing them" or not, as the Constitution's pretty vague on all this and it's been interpreted for along time as a "right". Which, again, I'm not sure I'm 100% against. Plus, the argument of "you can do an assload of damage with two pistols and some extra clips, too" actually holds weight.

Personally I'm cool with an assault weapons ban, though I totally agree with the pro-guns people that it's actually not going to do shit.

I think the mental health reform aspect of it all troubles me a bit more. Lanza was obviously a ticking time-bomb psycho futhermucker, but it's a slippery slope to walk. What, you're going to start potentially committing people with no criminal record, not even an expressed threat to anyone's safety, because they're a staring-into-space, doesn't-say-a-word-to-anyone social 'tard? Apparently the guy hadn't ever done jack to warrant any action, and you can't start profiling people like that because 1-2% of them potentially might be a murderous asshole. The law doesn't work that way in other areas, it shouldn't there either.

Plus the obligatory usual "LOL eetz veedeogaymez & moviez, DUH. Kidz dese dayz wit their violencez" bullshit is running rampant again. Dumb fucks. 'Cause, like, ignoring the point that gun crime's dropped almost half in 20 years and that the highest violent-crime rates in the US were in fucking 1947 is fun, yo. The greatest generation made us look like Tellytubbies.

It's a complicated thing. I'm cool with tighter restrictions, but all the same I don't think we can just discount the points being made on the other side that, no, it's not going to do a damn thing. Safety & liberty are a balancing act, and I do think we've gotta be careful with all of this. It's such a minority of people even capable of carrying out this shit, and there has to be some middle ground where you can maybe prevent it without necessarily infringing on the sane people.

I hate it when both sides make good points. Grr, reality and its complications.

I think the mental health reform aspect of it all troubles me a bit more. Lanza was obviously a ticking time-bomb psycho futhermucker, but it's a slippery slope to walk. What, you're going to start potentially committing people with no criminal record, not even an expressed threat to anyone's safety, because they're a staring-into-space, doesn't-say-a-word-to-anyone social 'tard? Apparently the guy hadn't ever done jack to warrant any action, and you can't start profiling people like that because 1-2% of them potentially might be a murderous asshole. The law doesn't work that way in other areas, it shouldn't there either.

Mental health reform doesn't automatically mean locking random people away on Shutter Island - more like putting increased resources into identifying children/teens who are suffering from mental illness while they are at school, and then ensuring they are able to receive easy and affordable access to the appropriate medications.

Last edited by jacknife737; 12-21-2012 at 11:29 PM.

Originally Posted by Tom Gabel

Adrenaline carried one last thought to fruition.
Let this be the end.
Let this be the last song.
Let this be the end.
Let all be forgiven.

And, legally, he could have refused the medications as there's no grounds for incompetence or forced intervention. And that's probably how it should be, as he hadn't really done anything prior. No threats, no suicide notes, nothing but a diagnosed personality disorder, which is obviously debatable in terms of severity and need for either drugs or committal. The guy was still a free man, he was a weirdo, but that's about it. He still had every right to be walking around doing as he pleased, disorder or no. The second you start messing around with that in the law, that becomes a problem. You can't really pre-empt stuff like this, especially as he didn't own the guns in the first place.

Eskimo, I agree with you that psychological/mental health is an incredible feat to tackle. We definitely could use major improvements to the system, in that it's currently looked down on to get mental help, and also in that it's incredibly expensive and difficult to see a psychiatrist... but it's not the simple answer to solving violence in the US. It's only a part of it. Nobody can be forced to get help - and you're right that it should stay that way because most people who could use help are not violent and are no risk but rather just strange and awkward - and also many, many people are just not receptive to help. Even if we did force everyone to seek help, there's no way to get everyone to actually work with a mental professional and try to work on themselves.

I also think the video game argument is pretty weak, as it's only passing the problem off on to a distant third party. At the same time, though, the US does have a problem regarding how much people glorify violence, and I think that's something that could be worked on - I just don't know how. It would have to be a shift in group mentality, and video games are only a minor part of that.

However, your thoughts on guns is the part I can't agree on. Someone with two pistols and a few clips can't do nearly as much damage as someone with an assault weapon. One would fire a few individual shots and then have to reload, giving people time to tackle him or knock him out. Think about holding two guns, and then having to put one under your arm to hold while you reload the other with both hands. I do think that limiting clip sizes and the types of guns people can get would make a difference. And I implore you to read the article I linked regarding gun laws in Japan - a country with virtually no gun violence anymore.

Japan isn't America ; for whatever cultural and societal reasons, they've never had a real problem with violent crime. You shouldn't point to a system that works in Japan and say "see?" anymore than the NRA folks should point to Switzerland. Neither country is as broken as America, and copying one of their policies on a certain issue isn't going to change that.

After Australia brought in gun control, both sides of this debate managed to wrangle up statistics to prove we immediately turned into a peaceful violence-free utopia, or devolved into an unrestrained orgy of rape and knifefighting. Neither are true ; violence pretty much just carried on the same way it always does. It kept steadily dropping at the same rate it's been dropping since we started to work towards becoming a civilised nation. Gun crime dropped, obviously, but angry husbands strangled their wives instead of shooting them. Feuding white trash used swords and machetes instead of rifles and shotguns. And innocent bystanders to gang wars got blown up with car-bombs and pipe-bombs instead of being hit with stray bullets. Aside from our one (and only) high-score spree-shooting skewing the numbers, the murder rates didn't care about gun laws. The only real change was a massive drop in shooting deaths by negligence ; and there are no statistics to show how many drunken inbreds managed to kill themselves in some other stupid way, like trying to ramp a tractor or digging a backyard pool with dynamite.

I'd wager this holds true pretty much anywhere. All you can really do is try to restrict the deadliest mass-shooting type weapons, in the hopes that spree shooters can only take out a few people at a time, and that gangsters actually learn how to aim. Go too far and take away all the guns, and would-be spree-killers will just start googling bomb-making recipes... or flood the subway with nerve gas, Japan.

However, your thoughts on guns is the part I can't agree on. Someone with two pistols and a few clips can't do nearly as much damage as someone with an assault weapon. One would fire a few individual shots and then have to reload, giving people time to tackle him or knock him out. Think about holding two guns, and then having to put one under your arm to hold while you reload the other with both hands.

I didn't actually say it'd be as dangerous as a police/military grade rifle, only that banning the higher-grade guns won't prevent this. If anything, pistols are far easier for a loon to get their hands on, and the ammunition's more readily available. Are they as lethal as the bigger hardware? Hell no. But, it's not at all implausible that a guy could have taken out two-dozen-plus people in an elementary school without that type of weapon.

They're a problem, but it's not the problem. Lanza still would have ripped that town apart no matter what type of better-than-a-musket firearm he could get his hands on, with as much thought as he seemed capable of putting into his plan.

Again, I'm for banning them. I'm just not so much sure why, weirdly enough. People would just switch to using handguns, and get a little creative in their horrible little schemes. We'd still have a bunch of dead little kids on our hands.

Again, I'm for banning them. I'm just not so much sure why, weirdly enough. People would just switch to using handguns, and get a little creative in their horrible little schemes. We'd still have a bunch of dead little kids on our hands.

Thats the part I dont get, if you know it wont do jack shit, and your right, it will not, why do it?

It will never stop until we realize that the problem isnt guns, anymore than a thermometer causes fevers, it's a symptom of moral decline. It's because we don't want to be bothered raising our kids.

The main difference between Japan and us, is their culture. Just a ride on their subway could be prosecuted as a sex offense here.

I understand, it's easy to point the finger at the obvious and say ban it. People will FEEL like they fixed it, they DID something, nevermind their will be NO tangible effect. And as a bonus, we, as parents, and members of a society, don't have to look in the mirror.

The longest common theme in the history of humankind, is people doing horrible things to each other. This will never stop. In general, people suck. But with the exception of these types of events, there has been a decline in violence.

The only reason this whole debate raises my hackles, is because, as a nation, everytime there is a problem we now look to government to fix it. Then we wonder how we get things like the patriot act, and the fiscal cliff. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I didn't actually say it'd be as dangerous as a police/military grade rifle, only that banning the higher-grade guns won't prevent this. If anything, pistols are far easier for a loon to get their hands on, and the ammunition's more readily available. Are they as lethal as the bigger hardware? Hell no. But, it's not at all implausible that a guy could have taken out two-dozen-plus people in an elementary school without that type of weapon.

It will never stop until we realize that the problem isnt guns, anymore than a thermometer causes fevers, it's a symptom of moral decline. It's because we don't want to be bothered raising our kids.

I'm seeing these awful analogies abound, regarding the "guns don't kill people" argument. A thermometer? Do you use a thermometer to make a fever? Or is it that you just use a gun to measure death? A gun is a tool that was created to destroy things. That's its only use, and many, many people use a gun to kill people. Nobody uses a thermometer to get a fever. That just doesn't make an ounce of sense.

And the rest of your posts are just full of so much libertarian nonsense that I won't bother. Where's Tim? Lol

We, need governance, but as little of it as possible. And it should be biggest, closest to home, and smallest at the federal level.

I'm gonna bite at this part, though. Why do we need this? Why is state govt better than federal? Why don't we just break up the US and have 50 countries? Let's make the laws totally different in each state and require a passport to travel between them. I seriously don't get why state govt is better than federal. Governors and senators and mayors fuck up just as often as the feds, and it's moronic to have the ability drive across the border - still in the same country - and have totally different laws.